Within Your Control? When Problem Solving May Be Most Helpful.
Problem-solving coaching helps only when the client actually has control over the stressor—assess controllability first.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers ran a lab test with neurotypical adults. They split people into two groups.
One group got a stressor they could control. The other faced a stressor they could not fix.
What they found
Problem-solving coaching cut avoidance only when the person could actually change the stressor.
When the stressor was out of their hands, problem solving did not help. Rumination hurt no matter what.
How this fits with other research
Stevens et al. (2018) also ran a lab RCT the same year. They showed that worry before cognitive work makes GAD clients pick more negative and vague options. Both papers warn: check the client’s mental state before you teach a skill.
Kingston et al. (2010) found that experiential avoidance links many problem behaviors. Eggleston et al. (2018) now adds: teach problem solving only if the client can use it; otherwise you may just feed the avoidance loop.
Pierce et al. (1994) looked at phobic exposure and saw that giving the client control raised fear. That seems opposite, but it is not. In exposure, control lets the client choose how close to get, so fear goes up first. In problem solving, control means the stressor can be fixed, so fear goes down. Same word, two contexts.
Why it matters
Before you teach problem solving, ask: can the client really change this situation? If yes, coach away. If no, switch to acceptance or coping skills. A one-minute check can save you from wasting time and maybe making things worse.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a quick question to your intake: “Can you change this problem yourself?” If the answer is no, teach coping instead of problem solving.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Emotion regulation strategies have been conceptualized as adaptive or maladaptive, but recent evidence suggests emotion regulation outcomes may be context-dependent. The present study tested whether the adaptiveness of a putatively adaptive emotion regulation strategy-problem solving-varied across contexts of high and low controllability. The present study also tested rumination, suggested to be one of the most putatively maladaptive strategies, which was expected to be associated with negative outcomes regardless of context. Participants completed an in vivo speech task, in which they were randomly assigned to a controllable ( n = 65) or an uncontrollable ( n = 63) condition. Using moderation analyses, we tested whether controllability interacted with emotion regulation use to predict negative affect, avoidance, and perception of performance. Partially consistent with hypotheses, problem solving was associated with certain positive outcomes (i.e., reduced behavioral avoidance) in the controllable (vs. uncontrollable) condition. Consistent with predictions, rumination was associated with negative outcomes (i.e., desired avoidance, negative affect, negative perception of performance) in both conditions. Overall, findings partially support contextual models of emotion regulation, insofar as the data suggest that the effects of problem solving may be more adaptive in controllable contexts for certain outcomes, whereas rumination may be maladaptive regardless of context.
Behavior modification, 2018 · doi:10.1177/0145445517726300